C.S. Rajan, J.

The Divisional Forest Officer, Kothamangalam as per Ext. P1 order dated 10.12.1987 ordered confiscation of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent. The first respondent took up the matter in appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent by Ext. P2 order allowed the appeal and reversed Ext. P1 order. The main question on which the second respondent allowed the appeal was that unless it is proved that the vehicle in question was involved in the commission of the forest offence coming within the provisions of the Forest Act relating to any forest produce the vehicle cannot be ordered to be confiscated. At the time of removal of the alleged timber in the alleged vehicle the teak poles cannot be said to be the property belonging to the Government since these teak poles were sold in public auction and therefore, it became the property of the auction purchaser and ceased to be the property of the Government. It must be noted that this ground was not raised by the first respondent in the original memorandum of appeal. The second respondent allowed the above ground to be raised only at the time of argument by allowing the petition filed by the fi